Town Square

Pleasanton city employees agree to higher pension contributions, but gain first wage increases in 3 years

Original post made
on May 22, 2013

The Pleasanton City Council approved a proposed three-year agreement last night with the union representing 220 regular city employees that will raise individual pension contributions to 8% by the end of the year and reduce floating holiday hours while also granting a 7% wage increase over the life of the new contract, the first pay increase in several years.

Posted by Cheryl Cook-Kallio
a resident of Jensen Tract
on May 22, 2013 at 8:29 am

The contract was NOT approved last night. I made the motion (seconded by Kathy Narum), to place it on the agenda for June 4. At that the council will vote. The purpose of last night's agenda item was to make sure the public was aware of the terms before final ratification.

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm

According to the article regarding the proposed employee contract for the PCEA group, and the stated savings:

"Julie Yuan-Miu, assistant city manager and Director of Administrative services, told the council that the new agreement, which includes a package of reduced benefits for newly-hired employees, will reduce costs for the city by approximately $1.15 million."

Reduced costs of 1.15 million? How has Pleasanton management parsed the contract in order to come up with that (seemingly ridiculous) claim? Jerry Thorne has been preaching the need to reduce employee costs to 65-70 percent of the GF budget. This contract appears to move employee costs North, rather than South.

Can someone please explain to me how providing 7% in raises saves the city 1.15 million? A 7% raise increases payroll costs by over 10%. I just don't see it. And I don't think the city is being honest. I hope someone from the city can explain how increased compensation = reduced cost.

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 7:53 pm

If this isn't a shell game, I don't know what is. And we cannot tolerate any such continuation for too much is at stake. Let us think of the grandchildren and great grandchildren, please. There is no way we can fit an entire generation, let alone two or three, with the kinds of life support systems that are necessary to survive in the face of a Gigantic tsunami of debt that will likely level the entire state. Look at Greece. Look at Stockton, which has declared bankruptcy and hence will have to start all over again with a clean slate.

In California we have as many declared bankruptcies as we have divorces. And now cities are beginning. All those glub-glubbing bankrupty-ers you see out on the highway? We're next after the Big tsunami washes us away. Just look at Calpers and Calstrs. I rest my case, but I can't rest too long because there is so much work to be done in anticipation of the great flood.

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 8:22 pm

Hey fake Arnold, maybe I should be flattered that you use my name to make your silly comments. If it makes you feel good, by all means, carry on.

While I'm at it I'll say the 1.15 million the city is claiming as savings is probably 2 million in additional costs. For the record, that is a 3.15 million difference from what the city is reporting, and it just may be much worse.

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 8:37 pm

Bravely stated Arnold with the fake name who has taken my identity. It is, after all, impossible for there to be two Arnolds in all of Pleasanton. I will humbly suggest, therefore, given that my points are made far more loquaciously than are yours, that I be recognized as the one and only True Arnold. But, by all means, carry on your charade, and no, I am not flattered by your chicanery. It speaks to the level of desperation that takes over people's minds in the face of imminent danger, such as those posed by Enormous tsunamis. Evidence? Simply look at Calpers and Calstrs. They claim to be solvent but they must be lying. Again, desperate measures by desperate state workers attempting to feather their own floatation devices in anticipation of the soon to be apocalyptic flood.

Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 22, 2013 at 9:19 pm

O.K., but why are you making this topic about us? What is important, to me anyway, is that the city is honest with taxpayers. Is that a problem?

Do you care to take a shot at this statement: "While I'm at it I'll say the 1.15 million the city is claiming as savings is probably 2 million in additional costs. For the record, that is a 3.15 million difference from what the city is reporting, and it just may be much worse."

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name:*

Select your neighborhood or school community:*

Comment:*

Verification code:* Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.